Opinion Contributor

Senate's flawed border approach

The Senate’s 'border surge' is a textbook example of government waste, the author writes. | AP Photo

As former U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Robert Bonner recently wrote, “the so-called border surge proposal would simply throw a phenomenal amount of money at border enforcement without achieving control of the border.”

Ultimately, the Senate bill puts the cart before the horse by allocating billions before a plan is in place. While the number of agents and funds sent to the border are important, anyone who understands management knows that how those assets are used is infinitely more important. When manpower, resources and technology are deployed without an overarching strategy to achieve a specific, measurable goal, these elements are often duplicative, short-sighted or wasted entirely.

Text Size

-

+

reset

To address border security the right way, in April, I introduced bipartisan legislation that ensures results. H.R. 1417, the Border Security Results Act, demands a plan, verified by outside experts, before one dollar is spent on new resources. The bipartisan bill, which recently passed the House Homeland Security Committee unanimously, compels DHS to finally develop a comprehensive outcome-based strategy to achieve operational control of the border, defined as stopping 90 percent of illegal border crossers.

How do we know we’re stopping 90 percent? The mandated strategy incorporates the use of advanced Department of Defense sensor technology, much of which currently sits in warehouses overseas, to achieve visibility of our entire border – so we can finally see what we’re missing. These tools, which the taxpayers have already paid for, have proven effective at tracking border-crossers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once deployed as part of a comprehensive strategy, they will provide the situational awareness to really measure progress, and to stop plugging holes only to see the problem shift as it has from Tucson into Texas.

In addition to having to present the department’s national strategy to the Congress, the bill requires the strategy’s implementation, metrics and results to be verified by nonpartisan, outside experts, as opposed to the administration, on a tight but achievable timeline.

Finally, the bill is endorsed by both law enforcement and industry including the National Sheriffs Association, Major County Sheriffs Association and the Security Industry Association.

In an age of little consensus in Washington, this bill has brought Republicans and Democrats together. Unless we require a nationwide plan and results first, we will inevitably spend countless taxpayer dollars only to repeat this debate a decade from now. As we approach border security and immigration yet again, the Border Security Results Act demands progress instead of accepting the status quo.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) is chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security